The carrier is under construction at Northrop Grumman's Newport News sector, the nation's sole designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Weighing 780 tons and made up of 25 steel sections, the upper bow is one of the heaviest crane lifts in the ship's production plan. Newport News began construction on the upper bow unit last February.

"Landing the fully-outfitted upper bow on the ship is a significant milestone in the design and construction of CVN 77, and most importantly, a great team effort by our shipbuilders," said Scott Stabler, vice president for the CVN 77 program at Northrop Grumman Newport News. "We are on track for record shipboard construction progress at launch in October."

When the contract for CVN 77 was let, there was talk of incorporating some of the design features of the next series of carriers. Features such as stealthy superstructure, greatly increased automation and smaller crew.

If anyone wants to be truly impressed, visit Newport News. Go downtown to the shipyard area and look at a carrier under construction or refit  the tallest building in Newport News is any carrier in the shipyard. These ships are truly huge, but they dont look all that big until you get within a few blocks of the shipyard.

18
posted on 03/18/2006 6:05:00 AM PST
by R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)

You are correct, this article is about the USS G H Bush. I didn't open the article and assumed it concerned the work commencing on the next carrier after the GHB. The shipbuilders three or four months ago began cutting the metal for this unnamed follow-up carrier. My mistake but the point remains, the next carrier will almost surely be the Clinton.

".........the nation's sole designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers." Disturbing. The concentration of military production facilities is short sighted. It may be cost effective but the lack of production redundancy could prove fatal.

"When the contract for CVN 77 was let, there was talk of incorporating some of the design features of the next series of carriers."

- Why are shipyards still building these monster carriers for future operations when they have the tri- service Raptor aircraft in final testing which has VTOL technology built in? Such an aircraft would make those long flight decks virtually obsolete while shrinking the size of the carrier and increasing it's aircraft carrying capacity.

"- Why are shipyards still building these monster carriers for future operations when they have the tri- service Raptor aircraft in final testing which has VTOL technology built in? Such an aircraft would make those long flight decks virtually obsolete while shrinking the size of the carrier and increasing it's aircraft carrying capacity."

Because all then VTOL aircraft will take years to bring online, will not be available in great numbers for some time, and in the meantime, other aircraft like the F/A-18, S-3 and E-3 still have a lot of useful life in their airframes, and aren't VTOL. They still perform important roles and require a full-sized flight deck for launch and recovery with any sort of safety.

We will not talk about how systems like double hulling and the concept of reserve bouyancy affect the overall size of a ship, because that's an incredibly complicated subject, but it is another reason why these behemoths grow to such a size.

In addition, one purpose of a CVN is to steam anywhere over 75% of the earth's surface and arrive off an enemy's shore with an air force (80 or so aircraft, depending on mission) bigger than that of most small countries. Those aircraft require fuel, spare parts, repair facilities, ordnance, and the crews to maintain them, and therefore, the ship is by necessity, a monster.

You make a big mistake if you believe that shrinking the carrier's size automatically leads to an increase in aircraft capacity because of VTOL. If wwe had an all-VTOL airfleet, the ship would get smaller, true, but so would the compliment of aircraft because the smaller ship could not accomodate fuels, stores, etc to keep them in the air for extended periods of time.

Not to mention that VTOL aircraft carrying heavy loads eat fuel up in emormous quantities in the simple act of taking off. Even the Royal Navy, which operates small carriers with VTOL aircraft (Harriers), incorporates a 'ski-jump' bow to allow laden planes to make rolling take-offs, which is more fuel efficient and safer.

By the way, those RN carriers (the British call 'em 'Through-deck cruisers') are 1/3 the size of an American CVN and operate about 20 aircraft (mix of Harriers and helocopters). This is a fabulous arrangement for local operations (ASW, Local Air superiority) but you cannot porject power with it (read up on the Falkland's War).

I've served on three carriers in my lifetime (Midway, Enterprise, Eisenhower) as an aviation ordnanceman (AO1), and I'm damned proud of it. These ships have capabilities, and give commanders a flexibility, that the average person simply cannot comprehend.

The upcoming Royal Navy CVF (the French may also build on) is much more comparable in size to the Nimitz-class CVN (see: this page. What's deployed on it will depend on whether the UK and US can sort out their current arguments over the codes on the JSF.

The British (and possibly French) are looking to build carriers more comparable in size to our Nimitz-class carriers. See this page for some info on their CVF plans and size comparisons with other carriers in service.

Will the French carrier ever put to sea, or will it have the wrong propellers, a leaky reactor, and a tendancy to break down at slow speeds like the current French flattop?

It would be good to see the Brits back in the carrier business, however, since they invented the concept and they would be a valuable adjunct to US Naval Aviation (the same holds true of the Indian Navy).

It's been proven throughout history: he who controls the sea, controls the course of events.

CVN 77 Upper Bow Lift - March 15, 2006 The George H.W. Bush is the second carrier with the bulbous bow design. USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is the first. Photo by Rick Thompson

CVN 77 Upper Bow Lift - March 15, 2006 The addition of the upper bow on the George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) completes the flight deck and extends the overall length of the carrier to its full size, which is as long as the Empire State Building is tall. Photo by Rick Thompson

Steel decks. IIRC the last wood deck carrier was decommissioned in the early '70's.

Are sailors still portioned a measure of rum each day or did that custom end?

Prohibition ended that little bennie. Since the late '70's they don't even give brandy to aircrew fished out of the water. When that happened, you could hear the scream of outraged pilots over the sound of a F-4 winding up to full afterburners.

47
posted on 03/18/2006 8:14:15 AM PST
by magslinger
(Pray for your enemies, It's like taking a B52 to a gun fight.)

VTOL is great for close in work and fleet air defense. But as you say, they are severely limited in the amount of ordinance they can carry over long distances. Same applies in a large measure even to VSTOL and ski jumps. Makes their power rojection and strike at sea, or land capabilities very limited compared to large deck carriers like ours.

For a great comparison of ALL carrier classes wolrd-wide, including the large deck amphibs, see my:

The British (and possibly French) are looking to build carriers more comparable in size to our Nimitz-class carriers.

Yeah, I've been following this, and I think it's good that the UK will have more capable carriers. (The French carrier won't be helpful to the free world, but I guess its construction will help keep costs down for the Brits, by spreading their development costs over an additional vessel.)

If I've read the news right, their ships will displace about 2/3's as much as our Nimitz-class ships.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.